573. The Justification For Ridiculing Irrational Beliefs

573.     The Justification For Ridiculing Irrational Beliefs

In entry 436 (Religion As Entertainment), I described, how the weirdness of behaviors based upon irrational beliefs can be very entertaining and that some religious events are spectacles worth visiting.   I mentioned Lourdes as an example.   

In a forum discussion I mentioned, how shared laughter at irrational behaviors is a way of feeling close with someone because of sharing the same attitudes, while the necessity to censor myself and refrain from laughing in the company of persons afflicted themselves with those weird beliefs is an indication of the separating mental ditch.  
Mentioning Lourdes as an example I was accused of laughing at cripples.   There is a fallacy in this accusation.   

The evaluation of a person's situation and the evaluation of a person's method of coping with a situation are independent.   Compassion with a person's unfortunate situation does not require automatic respect for weird coping,

• Every religious and other irrational belief and every behavior based upon such beliefs are so preposterous and ludicrous, that this justifies ridicule and making fun of it.   This is independent of who is afflicted with the irrationality and of the reasons to behave irrationally.   This ridicule is principally justified by the irrationality.  
• Justified ridicule is no justification for hurting the feelings of the misguided believers.  Ridiculing has to be restricted to be shared only by those in agreement.   It is important to be guided by the consideration to ascertain, that the unfortunate believers are kept ignorant and are not exposed to the ridicule.     
• The moral justification of ridicule depends directly upon how much choice there is.   It is not justified to ridicule someone for being sick, because this is not a choice.   But it is justified to ridicule someone (without his knowledge) for praying or taking homeopathy, because this is irrational and it is a choice.  
• When looking at the absurdity, there is not difference between someone praying to win the lottery and someone praying to be healed from an incurable condition.    The urgency of the suffering of the sick, which is not there for someone merely dreaming of being rich, explains the susceptibility and gullibility to behave irrationally, it does not diminish the absurdity.   
• Justifying hidden ridicule is the combined expression of two distinctive consequences of the same underlying strong rationality.  
  Irrationality is defined as the absence of full rationality, no matter the circumstances.      The rational moral principle of not harming people, of behaving according to the golden rule and a tit-for-tat strategy requires not to show the ridicule.  It requires instead to independently perceive and acknowledge the need for compassion and support.     

Having visited Lourdes, standing there hidden in a corner and sharing a discreet good laughter about the weird spectacle was restricted to ridiculing the irrational religious behaviors of making fools of themselves by going to Lourdes.  Ridiculing this choice does not imply any devaluation of the unfortunate and tragic situation of being crippled and sick.   They have my compassion and my sympathy.   


There is the Darwin award, ridiculing especially absurd and stupid ways of people causing their own accidental death.  I would never jump to the fallacious conclusion to mistake people as cold and immoral monsters for nothing more than having invented the Darwin award.   Laughing about weird ways of getting killed does not preclude their having compassion with dying and suffering persons and those grieving for them.  

332. A Mythological Winner of the Darwin Award

A Mythological Winner of the Darwin Award

Someone mentioned the Greek mythological story of Hero and Leander in an email and we disagreed about the interpretation.   He perceives the story as romantic, blaming the tragic end entirely on the carelessness of Hero, while I think that Leander is a fool, who deserves the Darwin award.  

"Hero and Leander,  two lovers celebrated in Greek legend. Hero, virgin priestess of Aphrodite at Sestos, was seen at a festival by Leander of Abydos; they fell in love, and he swam the Hellespont at night to visit her, guided by a light from her tower. One stormy night the light was extinguished, and Leander was drowned; Hero, seeing his body, drowned herself likewise."
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/263413/Hero-and-Leander

There is a longer text, from where the following quotes are taken:
http://www.maicar.com/GML/Hero.html

"This unstable arrangement did not last more than the warm season."

He obviously continued his nightly swimming for a considerable time without even considering to improve his method of seeing her.  

"in AD 1810, by the English poet Lord Byron, who swam from Sestus to Abydus in one hour and ten minutes". 

Someone doing this twice every night, needed rest in the day time.   That means, that Leander was certainly not a hard working laborer, but had enough money to have options. 

Therefore he had alternatives to risking his life:

• He could have bought a boat and rowed or sailed.  
• He could have moved to live somewhere near her, so he could visit her without crossing the water.
• He could have eloped with her to a place, where nobody knew about her obligation to remain a priestess.   

Seen from a rational perspective, he was a fool, who brought his death upon himself.   That is, why he deserves the Darwin award.   And if she never suggested less risky options, she was as much a fool as he.


But this is a mythological tale, and only interpreting it like I did above is missing an important aspect of reading such old tales.   As much as its message of Hero and Leander being role models is obsolete, the story is an interesting illustration of how the subconscious animal instincts are represented consciously by attitudes. 
A mythological story tells, what is commonly accepted as normal at the times of its origin.   

By animal instincts, female breeders are driven to prefer the genes of the strongest and most daring studs, surviving all risks to his life before being allowed to procreate.  In this story, Hero's instincts did not allow her to choose a prudent, intelligent male using the safety of a boat, just as Leander's instincts drove him to risk his life to win her favors, instead of wooing a woman preferring intelligence.   

The first known written sources of this story date back not much more than 2000 years.   But maybe the tale is much older and dates back to the times before the evolution of rational thinking had an influence upon the choice of a mate.   Here I am speculating again.  
If I would start to analyze more old myths, fables and fairy tales, many could probably be reduced to a positive attitude towards instinctive behaviors not only of breeding, but also of ingroup-outgroup, of hierarchy forming, enhanced by gullibility.  

290. A Metaphor for Denial

A Metaphor for Denial

A man drives underneath a steep cliff.    In front of him lies a boulder on the road.    Any person of normal intelligence drives around or stops.   A moron drives straight on until he hits the boulder with full speed.    His reason is his denial of reality in favor of his belief of what should be.  
The moron in denial believes that there cannot be any obstacles, because a road is made to drive upon it without obstacles.    If he is alone in the car, he is a candidate for the Darwin award.   But if there is a woman with him in the car, who repeatedly warns him with growing urgency, and he ignores her warnings, then he is responsible for the harm, that hitting the boulder does to her.   He believes his definition of a road more than he believes the perception of reality of the woman.

The emotional moron is just like that man.   He has entered a relationship and believes that by using domination, the road is free with no obstacles to get all his needs out of the woman, whom he believes to be a commodity.   The woman repeatedly warns him, that he is running with full speed towards the destruction of the relationship.   He is in full denial until it is too late, and the relationship is over.  He is responsible for the harm, that he does to the woman by ignoring her warnings.  He believes his delusion of the woman's appropriate role as a commodity more than her attempted explanation about her reality.   

Maybe there should be a Darwin award for the most stupid way to destroy a relationship and to drive a woman away.